Super Screen movie
The advertising director of the Super Screen Movie Production Company proposes to allocate a greater percentage of budget to advertising, claiming that this would help increase the amount of people attending Super Screen produced movies. He believes this because during the past year fewer people than ever before went to Super Screen movies, yet a larger proportion of positive reviews was received. Ostensibly the extra advertising would tout the positive reviews and thus attract more audiences. A series of questions, however, need to be addressed about the possible flaws before the plan is implemented.
In the first place, the company needs to ask what the actual number of reviews is because a decrease in the total number of reviews will itself lead to larger percentage of positive reviews, even if the number of positive reviews remains the same or even declines. If this is the case, it would be unreasonable to regard this as a supporting evidence of the movies’ high quality.
Even if indeed more positive reviews than before were received, we still cannot conclude that the movies are of good qualities. On the contrary, it could actually be an evidence of poor qualities. Perhaps lots of people did not go to see a Super Screen-produced movies because they saw one before and it was unsatisfactory. And those who still attend the new movies are the people who really enjoy movies made by Super Screen for some reasons. Then there is no wonder why they will give positive feedback. Therefore, customer surveys should be conducted to investigate the real opinions of customers and to see if quality problems present.
In addition, no evidence is given to support the argument of public's lack of awareness. It is entirely possible that people are well informed of Super Screen and its movies but they are just not interested, which again indicates problems of movie qualities. The company could again distribute surveys to its target audiences to gain first-hand information of their preferences.
The current advertising strategies should be looked at carefully, for example, what media are used, the content of the advertisements, when are the ads being shown, etcetera. Since even though the advertising was indeed not effective, it would not necessarily due to lack of funds. Perhaps sufficient funds were allocated but the ways or channels of advertising are inappropriate, or advertisements were targeted to wrong groups of people. If this is the case, then what Super Screen should do is not to allocate more funds, but to improve it marketing strategies.
In conclusion, there are many questions Super Screen needs to answer before using this advertising director’s plan. They need to look carefully at actual number of reviews, both positive and negative. They also need to determine how its audiences feel about the movies and what they would like to see. Finally they need to take a nuanced look at the advertising strategies adopted currently.
- Claim: In any field — business, politics, education, government — those in power should step down after five years.Reason: The surest path to success for any enterprise is revitalization through new leadership. 66
- Some people believe that they should be able to keep all the money they earn and should not pay any tax to the state To what extent do you agree or disagree 95
- Many countries spend a lot of money in the arts. Some people think investment in the arts is necessary, but others say money is better spent on public services and facilities. Discuss both views and give your own opinion. 78
- The following is part of a memorandum from the president of Humana University."Last year the number of students who enrolled in online degree programs offered by nearby Omni University increased by 50 percent. During the same year, Omni showed a sign 86
- The graph below shows the quantities of goods transported in the UK between 1974 and 2002 by four different modes of transport. 78
Comments
Essay evaluation report
samples:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-argument-task-essays/following-taken-me…
----------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 3.5 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 23 15
No. of Words: 485 350
No. of Characters: 2433 1500
No. of Different Words: 233 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.693 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.016 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.695 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 186 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 131 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 97 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 56 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.087 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.862 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.783 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.287 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.53 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.065 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 6 5
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 11, column 308, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Finally,
...movies and what they would like to see. Finally they need to take a nuanced look at the...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, finally, first, however, if, look, really, so, still, then, therefore, thus, well, for example, in addition, in conclusion, on the contrary, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 28.0 19.6327345309 143% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.9520958084 131% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 11.1786427146 125% => OK
Relative clauses : 7.0 13.6137724551 51% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 30.0 28.8173652695 104% => OK
Preposition: 66.0 55.5748502994 119% => OK
Nominalization: 8.0 16.3942115768 49% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2511.0 2260.96107784 111% => OK
No of words: 485.0 441.139720559 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.17731958763 5.12650576532 101% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.56307096286 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.85222092491 2.78398813304 102% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 204.123752495 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492783505155 0.468620217663 105% => OK
syllable_count: 792.9 705.55239521 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 8.0 4.96107784431 161% => OK
Article: 6.0 8.76447105788 68% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 2.70958083832 221% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 4.0 1.67365269461 239% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 19.7664670659 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 22.8473053892 92% => OK
Sentence length SD: 47.7032810672 57.8364921388 82% => OK
Chars per sentence: 109.173913043 119.503703932 91% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.0869565217 23.324526521 90% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.82608695652 5.70786347227 137% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 5.15768463074 116% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 8.20758483034 183% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 6.88822355289 87% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.67664670659 43% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.335353654497 0.218282227539 154% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.100173933072 0.0743258471296 135% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.142690291079 0.0701772020484 203% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.187321011013 0.128457276422 146% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10798697024 0.0628817314937 172% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.3799401198 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.3550499002 104% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.197005988 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.76 12.5979740519 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.29 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 111.0 98.500998004 113% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 12.3882235529 89% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.1389221557 93% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.9071856287 92% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.